DOCSLIB.ORG

Professional Ideals for Ohio Lawyers and Judges

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Professional Ideals for Ohio Lawyers and Judges T S C of O Commission on Professionalism PROFESSIONAL IDEALS for Ohio Lawyers & Judges On the Cover: The Words of Justice grace the North Reflecting Pool at the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center. Carved from granite, the words – Compassion, Equity, Honesty, Honor, Integrity, Justice, Peace, Reason, Truth, and Wisdom – represent the foundational ideals of the judicial branch and are a reminder of the fundamental principles of justice. PROFESSIONAL IDEALS FOR OHIO LAWYERS & JUDGES MAUREEN O’CONNOR Chief Justice SHARON L. KENNEDY PATRICK F. FISCHER R. PATRICK DeWINE MICHAEL P. DONNELLY MELODY J. STEWART JENNIFER BRUNNER Justices STEPHANIE E. HESS Interim Administrative Director TABLE OF CONTENTS page Introduction 1 From the Statement on Professionalism 3 A Lawyer’s Creed 4 A Lawyer’s Aspirational Ideals 5 Statement Regarding the Provision of Pro Bono Legal Services 9 by Ohio Lawyers From the Statement on Judicial Professionalism 11 A Judicial Creed 12 Professionalism DOs & DON’Ts 13 Judicial Professionalism 15 Working with Opposing Counsel & Other Lawyers 21 Legal Writing 25 Conduct of Prosecutors & Defense Attorneys 29 Depositions 35 Professionalism in the Courtroom 39 Commission on Professionalism 43 Chairs of the Commission on Professionalism 44 INTRODUCTION he following pages contain A Lawyer’s Creed, A Lawyer’s Aspirational TIdeals and A Judicial Creed, which were adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio upon recommendation by the Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism. These statements encapsulate the ideals of professionalism for lawyers and judges. Included in the professionalism ideals for lawyers and judges are integrity, the achievement and maintenance of competence, a commitment to a life of service, and the quest for justice for all. Professionalism requires lawyers and judges to remain mindful that their primary obligations are to the institutions of law and the betterment of society, rather than to the interests of their clients or themselves. Also included in these materials is the Supreme Court Statement Regarding the Provision of pro bono Legal Services by Ohio Lawyers, which speaks to a lawyer’s obligations to ensure equal access to justice and to serve the public good. Finally, these contents feature Professionalism DOs & DON’Ts, which provide guidelines for professional behavior in various contexts of legal practice. Attorneys and judges who adhere to and promote the best practices depicted in the Professionalism DOs & DON’Ts will elevate the level of professionalism in the practice of law. 1 from the statement on professionalism . .As professionals we need to strive to meet lofty goals and ideals in order to achieve the highest standards of a learned profession. To this end, the Court issues A Lawyer’s Creed and A Lawyer’s Aspirational Ideals, which have been adopted and recommended for the Court’s issuance by the Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism. In so doing, it is not the Court’s intention to regulate or to provide additional bases for discipline, but rather to facilitate the promotion of professionalism among Ohio’s lawyers, judges and legal educators. It is the Court’s hope that these individuals, their professional associations, law firms and educational institutions will utilize the creed and the aspirational ideals as guidelines for this purpose. Issued by the Supreme Court of Ohio February 3, 1997 3 a lawyer’s creed TO MY CLIENTS, I offer loyalty, confidentiality, competence, diligence and my best judgment. I shall represent you as I should want to be represented and be worthy of your trust. I shall counsel you with respect to alternative methods to resolve disputes. I shall endeavor to achieve your lawful objectives as expeditiously and economically as possible. TO THE OPPOSING PARTIES and THEIR COUNSEL, I offer fairness, integrity and civility. I shall not knowingly make misleading or untrue statements of fact or law. I shall endeavor to consult with and cooperate with you in scheduling meetings, depositions and hearings. I shall avoid excessive and abusive discovery. I shall attempt to resolve differences and, if we fail, I shall strive to make our dispute a dignified one. TO THE COURTS and OTHER TRIBUNALS, and TO THOSE WHO ASSIST THEM, I offer respect, candor and courtesy. Where consistent with my client’s interests, I shall communicate with opposing counsel in an effort to avoid or resolve litigation. I shall attempt to agree with other counsel on a voluntary exchange of information and on a plan for discovery. I shall do honor to the search for justice. TO MY COLLEAGUES in the practice of law, I offer concern for your reputation and well-being. I shall extend to you the same courtesy, respect, candor and dignity that I expect to be extended to me. TO THE PROFESSION, I offer assistance in keeping it a calling in the spirit of public service, and in promoting its understanding and an appreciation for it by the public. I recognize that my actions and demeanor reflect upon our system of justice and our profession, and I shall conduct myself accordingly. TO THE PUBLIC and our SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, I offer service. I shall devote some of my time and skills to community, governmental and other activities that promote the common good. I shall strive to improve the law and our legal system and to make the law and our legal system available to all. 4 a lawyer’s aspirational ideals AS TO CLIENTS, I shall aspire: a) To expeditious and economical achievement of all client objectives. b) To fully informed client decision-making. I should: 1) Counsel clients about all forms of dispute resolution 2) Counsel clients about the value of cooperation as a means toward the productive resolution of disputes 3) Maintain the sympathetic detachment that permits objective and independent advice to clients 4) Communicate promptly and clearly with clients, and 5) Reach clear agreements with clients concerning the nature of the representation. c) To fair and equitable fee agreements. I should: 1) Discuss alternative methods of charging fees with all clients 2) Offer fee arrangements that reflect the true value of the services rendered 3) Reach agreements respecting fees with clients as early in the relationship as possible 4) Determine the amount of fees by consideration of many factors and not just time spent, and 5) Provide written agreements as to all fee arrangements. d) To comply with the obligations of confidentiality and the avoidance of conflicting loyalties in a manner designed to achieve fidelity to clients. e) To achieve and maintain a high level of competence in my field or fields of practice. AS TO OPPOSING PARTIES and THEIR COUNSEL, I shall aspire: a) To cooperate with opposing counsel in a manner consistent with the competent representation of my client. I should: 1) Notify opposing counsel in a timely fashion of any canceled appearance 5 2) Grant reasonable requests for extensions or scheduling changes, and 3) Consult with opposing counsel in the scheduling of appearances, meetings and depositions. b) To treat opposing counsel in a manner consistent with his or her professional obligations and consistent with the dignity of the search for justice. I should: 1) Not serve motions or pleadings in such a manner or at such a time as to preclude opportunity for a competent response 2) Be courteous and civil in all communications 3) Respond promptly to all requests by opposing counsel 4) Avoid rudeness and other acts of disrespect in all meetings, including depositions and negotiations 5) Prepare documents that accurately reflect the agreement of all parties, and 6) Clearly identify all changes made in documents submitted by opposing counsel for review. AS TO THE COURTS and OTHER TRIBUNALS, and TO THOSE WHO ASSIST THEM, I shall aspire: a) To represent my clients in a manner consistent with the proper functioning of a fair, efficient and humane system of justice. I should: 1) Avoid nonessential litigation and nonessential pleading in litigation 2) Explore the possibilities of settlement of all litigated matters 3) Seek noncoerced agreement between the parties on procedural and discovery matters 4) Avoid all delays not dictated by competent representation of a client 5) Prevent misuses of court time by verifying the availability of key participants for scheduled appearances before the court and by being punctual, and 6) Advise clients about the obligations of civility, courtesy, fairness, cooperation and other proper behavior expected of those who use our system of justice. 6 b) To model for others the respect due to our courts. I should: 1) Act with complete honesty 2) Know court rules and procedures 3) Give appropriate deference to court rulings 4) Avoid undue familiarity with members of the judiciary 5) Avoid unfounded, unsubstantiated, or unjustified public criticism of members of the judiciary 6) Show respect by attire and demeanor 7) Assist the judiciary in determining the applicable law, and 8) Give recognition to the judiciary’s obligations of informed and impartial decision-making. AS TO MY COLLEAGUES IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW, I shall aspire: a) To recognize and develop a professional interdependence for the benefit of our clients and the legal system b) To defend you against unjust criticism, and c) To offer you assistance with your personal and professional needs. AS TO OUR PROFESSION, I shall aspire: a) To improve the practice of law. I should: 1) Assist in continuing legal education efforts 2) Assist in organized bar activities 3) Assist law schools in the education of our future lawyers, and 4) Assist the judiciary in achieving objectives of A Lawyer’s Creed and these aspirational ideals. b) To promote the understanding of and an appreciation for our profession by the public. I should: 1) Use appropriate opportunities, publicly and privately, to comment upon the roles of lawyers in society and government, as well as in our system of justice, and 7 2) Conduct myself always with an awareness that my actions and demeanor reflect upon our profession.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report of the Working Group on Judiciary Law §470
    REPORT OF THE NYSBA WORKING GROUP ON JUDICIARY LAW §470 Background Judiciary Law §470 provides: A person, regularly admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor, in the courts of record of this state, whose office for the transaction of law business is within the state, may practice as such attorney or counsellor, although he resides in an adjoining state. In 2009, Ekaterina Schoenefeld, an attorney licensed to practice in New York, but residing in New Jersey and having an office only in New Jersey, commenced an action in federal court in the Northern District of New York to challenge Judiciary Law §470 under the United States Constitution. In 2011, the District Court found §470 unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.1 The Attorney General appealed the decision to the Second Circuit, and the Second Circuit certified the question of what constituted an office within the state to the New York Court of Appeals.2 The Court of Appeals accepted the certification3 and, interpreting the statute for the first time, held that §470 “requires nonresident attorneys to maintain a physical office in New York.”4 In its opinion, the Court of Appeals recognized that the State “does have an interest in ensuring that personal service can be accomplished on nonresident attorneys admitted to practice here.” However, the Court acknowledged that currently “there would appear to be adequate measures in place relating to service on nonresident attorneys” under the CPLR and its own Court rules and that the Legislature could take additional action if necessary. On June 30, 2015, while the appeal was pending before the Second Circuit, then NYSBA President David Miranda appointed the Working Group to address the issue of the requirements on non-resident attorneys to practice in New York and to make a recommendation once the Second Circuit determined the issue of the statute’s constitutionality.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule-Of-Law.Pdf
    RULE OF LAW Analyze how landmark Supreme Court decisions maintain the rule of law and protect minorities. About These Resources Rule of law overview Opening questions Discussion questions Case Summaries Express Unpopular Views: Snyder v. Phelps (military funeral protests) Johnson v. Texas (flag burning) Participate in the Judicial Process: Batson v. Kentucky (race and jury selection) J.E.B. v. Alabama (gender and jury selection) Exercise Religious Practices: Church of the Lukumi-Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (controversial religious practices) Wisconsin v. Yoder (compulsory education law and exercise of religion) Access to Education: Plyer v. Doe (immigrant children) Brown v. Board of Education (separate is not equal) Cooper v. Aaron (implementing desegregation) How to Use These Resources In Advance 1. Teachers/lawyers and students read the case summaries and questions. 2. Participants prepare presentations of the facts and summaries for selected cases in the classroom or courtroom. Examples of presentation methods include lectures, oral arguments, or debates. In the Classroom or Courtroom Teachers/lawyers, and/or judges facilitate the following activities: 1. Presentation: rule of law overview 2. Interactive warm-up: opening discussion 3. Teams of students present: case summaries and discussion questions 4. Wrap-up: questions for understanding Program Times: 50-minute class period; 90-minute courtroom program. Timing depends on the number of cases selected. Presentations maybe made by any combination of teachers, lawyers, and/or students and student teams, followed by the discussion questions included in the wrap-up. Preparation Times: Teachers/Lawyers/Judges: 30 minutes reading Students: 60-90 minutes reading and preparing presentations, depending on the number of cases and the method of presentation selected.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to the Federal Magistrate Judges System
    A GUIDE TO THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE JUDGES SYSTEM Peter G. McCabe A White Paper Prepared at the Request of the Federal Bar Association Hon. Michael J. Newman, United States Magistrate Judge Chair of the Federal Bar Association’s Magistrate Judge Task Force (2013-14) President of the Federal Bar Association (2016-17) Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpí, Jr., United States District Judge President of the Federal Bar Association & Creator of the FBA’s Magistrate Judge Task Force (2013-14) August 2014 Updated October 2016 Introduction In the United States District Courts, there are two types of federal judges: United States District Judges (confirmed by the Senate with life tenure); and United States Magistrate Judges (appointed through a merit selection process for renewable, eight year terms). Although their precise duties may change from district to district, Magistrate Judges often conduct mediations, resolve discovery disputes, and decide a wide variety of motions; determine whether criminal defendants will be detained or released on a bond; appoint counsel for such defendants (and, in the misdemeanor context, hold trials and sentence defendants); and make recommendations regarding whether a party should win a case on summary judgment, whether a Social Security claimant should receive a disability award, whether a habeas petitioner should prevail, and whether a case merits dismissal. When both sides to a civil case consent, Magistrate Judges hear the entire dispute, rule on all motions, and preside at trial. There are now 531 full-time Magistrate Judges in the United States District Courts. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in 2013, Magistrate Judges disposed of a total of 1,179,358 matters.1 The importance of Magistrate Judges to the day-to-day workings of the federal trial courts cannot be overstated.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Legal Cultures, the Common Law Judiciary and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Ann D
    Cornell International Law Journal Volume 30 Article 3 Issue 2 1997 Lost in the Translation: Two Legal Cultures, the Common Law Judiciary and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Ann D. Jordan Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jordan, Ann D. (1997) "Lost in the Translation: Two Legal Cultures, the Common Law Judiciary and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region," Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 30: Iss. 2, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol30/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell International Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lost in the Translation: Two Legal Cultures, the Common Law Judiciary and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Ann D. Jordan* Introduction Hong Kong's common law legal system will not survive the 1997 transfer of sovereignty to China intact. It will slowly be transformed into a capitalist common law/socialist civil law system, tempered by political realities rather than forged by a coherent set of legal principles. The formal source of the conflict is the Basic Law,' a Chinese state-level law written by main- land Chinese scholars and officials with input from Hong Kong officials. The Basic Law is the national expression of China's promises contained in the Joint Declaration,2 the 1984 agreement whereby Britain transfers sover- eignty over Hong Kong to China.
    [Show full text]
  • Judges and the Rule of Law Re
    Judges and the Rule of Law Creating the Links: Environment, Human Rights and Poverty Edited by Thomas Greiber Judges and the Rule of Law Creating the Links: Environment, Human Rights and Poverty Edited by Thomas Greiber Papers and Speeches from an IUCN Environmental Law Programme (ELP) Side Event at the 3rd IUCN World Conservation Congress (WCC) held in Bangkok, Thailand, 17–25 November 2004 IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 60 The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or BMZ concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or BMZ. This publication has been made possible in part by funding from BMZ, the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, in collaboration with IUCN Environmental Law Centre, Bonn, Germany Copyright: © 2006 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commer- cial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copy- right holder. Citation: Greiber, T. (Ed.) 2006. Judges and the Rule of Law. Creating the Links: Environment, Human Rights and Poverty. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • New York State Bar Association Committee on Attorneys in Public Service December 3, 2008
    NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE ON ATTORNEYS IN PUBLIC SERVICE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDICIARY MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES Adopted by the New York State Bar Association Subcommittee on the Administrative Law Judiciary November 7, 2008 Adopted by the New York State Bar Association Committee on Attorneys in Public Service December 3, 2008 Approved by the New York State Bar Association House of Delegates April 4, 2009 NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION Committee on Attorneys in Public Service Subcommittee on the Administrative Law Judiciary COMMITTEE ON MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES* Hon. Catherine M. Bennett, ALJ Hon. John H. Farrell, ALJ Spencer Fisher, Esq. David B. Goldin, Esq. Hon. James F. Horan, ALJ Hon. Elizabeth H. Liebschutz, Chief ALJ Hon. Peter S. Loomis, Chief ALJ Hon. Marjorie A. Martin, ALJ Hon. James T. McClymonds, Chief ALJ Hon. Edward R. Mevec, ALJ Christina L. Roberts, Esq. Joanna Weiss, Esq. Hon. Marc P. Zylberberg, ALJ * The Committee would like to especially recognize and thank Ms. Quinn Morris, Legal Intern and recent Albany Law School graduate, and Mr. Paul Buchbinder, Legal Intern, for their invaluable assistance in preparing this Model Code of Judicial Conduct for State Administrative Law Judges. -ii- MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES Table of Contents Preamble......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Executive and Judicial Powers Under the Constitutions of Argentina and the United States Alexander W
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository James Goold Cutler Lecture Conferences, Events, and Lectures 1937 A Comparison of Executive and Judicial Powers Under the Constitutions of Argentina and the United States Alexander W. Weddell Repository Citation Weddell, Alexander W., "A Comparison of Executive and Judicial Powers Under the Constitutions of Argentina and the United States" (1937). James Goold Cutler Lecture. 24. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cutler/24 Copyright c 1937 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cutler A Comparison of Executive and Judicial Powers Under the Constitutions of Argentina 'and the United States AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER w. WEDDELL Ambassador to the Argentine Republic AT THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA APRIL 23, 1937 A Comparison of Executive and Judicial Powers Under the Constitutions of Argentina and the United States BY ALEXANDER W. WEDDELL Ambassador to the Argentine Republic An Address Before the President, Faculty, Students and Guests of the College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia April 23, 1937 Mr. President, Members of the Faculty, Ladies and Gentlemen: My presence in Williamsburg today is in obedience to a command from the President and Faculty of this venerable and venerated Institution to assemble with them to receive a high honor. And since I can find no words with which to adequately express to them my gratitude for the distinction conferred on me this morning, I can only utter, in my solemn pride, a heart­ felt "thank you,"-a thanks which I beg you to be­ lieve is "deeper than the lip." In asking me to address you this evening the President and Faculty do me further honor, if at the same time they lay upon me a heavy burden.
    [Show full text]
  • Precedent and Justice William D
    Valparaiso University ValpoScholar Law Faculty Publications Law Faculty Presentations and Publications 2011 Precedent and Justice William D. Bader David R. Cleveland Valparaiso University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.valpo.edu/law_fac_pubs Part of the Jurisprudence Commons, and the Legal Writing and Research Commons Recommended Citation William D. Bader & David R. Cleveland, Precedent and Justice, 49 Duq. L. Rev. 35 (2011). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Presentations and Publications at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Precedent and Justice William D. Bader* and David R. Cleveland** Abstract Precedent is the cornerstone of common law method. It is the core mechanism by which the common law reaches just outcomes. Through creation and application of precedent, common law seeks to produce justice. The appellate courts' practice of issuing un­ published, non-precedential opinions has generated considerable discussion about the value of precedent, but that debate has cen­ tered on pragmatic and formalistic values. This essay argues that the practice of issuing non-precedential opinions does more than offend constitutional dictates and present pragmatic problems to the appellate system; abandoning precedent undermines justice itself. Issuance of the vast majority of decisions as non­ precedential tears the justice-seeking mechanism of precedent from the heart of our common law system. In Memoriam Judge RichardS. Arnold (1936 2004) "It is the property of a diamond ..
    [Show full text]
  • 109 Federal Administrative Law Judges: a Focus on Our
    109 FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES: A FOCUS ON OUR INVISIBLE JUDICIARY Jeffrey S. Lubbers* The administrative law judge (ALJ)' is the central figure in formal administrative adjudication. There were 1,146 ALJs employed by twenty-nine federal agencies as of June 1980.' One indication of the importance of ALJs as lawmakers and law appliers is suggested by the fact that they outnumber by two to one the corps of United States district court judges who preside over the nation's entire federal civil and criminal trial docket.' Administrative law judges are employed by executive departments and independent agencies5 to conduct hearings and make decisions in *Senior Staff Attorney, Office of the Chairman, Administrative Conference of the United States. The article is a modification of an earlier chapter that appeared in ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE U.S., FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE HEARINGS- STATISTICAL REPORT FOR 1976-1978, 7-24 (1980). It represents only the analysis of the author and has not been reviewed or approved by the Conference or any of its standing committees. 'The newsletter of the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference expressed displeasure with the proliferation of the acronym "ALJ" (August 1979 newsletter). It is used in this article solely for the sake of brevity. 'Information obtained from Office of Administrative Law Judges, OPM, June 1980. See also Hearingson H.R. 6768 Before the House Comm. on Post Office and Civil Service, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess. 6 (1980), (testimony of Margery Waxman, general counsel, U.S. Office of Personnel Management) stating that out of 11 27judges, 43 were women and 54 were "minorities." 'See the table in the appendix.
    [Show full text]
  • JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: Promoting Justice and Maintaining Democracy
    JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: Promoting Justice and Maintaining Democracy August 2019 BOSTON BAR ASSOCIATION JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE WORKING GROUP Renée Landers (Co-Chair) is a Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Health and Biomedical Law Concentration at Suffolk University Law School. She is a former BBA President and served as Vice Chair of the Commission on Judicial Conduct. She also sat on the task force that drafted the revised Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct and currently is a member of the Committee on Judicial Ethics which advises judges on compliance with the Code. Lisa Goodheart (Co-Chair) is a partner at Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., where her litigation practice includes environmental, energy, land use, real estate, insurance, and business matters. In addition to being a former President of both the BBA and the BBF, Lisa has served as Chair of both the Judicial Nominating Commission and the Court Management Advisory Board. Jon Albano (Boston Bar Association President) is a partner at Morgan Lewis, where he focuses his practice on trial and appellate work in commercial, media, and First Amendment matters. Before becoming BBA President, Jon co-chaired the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Steering Committee. Hon. Robert Cordy (Ret.) was appointed to the Supreme Judicial Court in 2001 and served for 16 years as associate justice. Currently, as partner at McDermott, Will & Emery, he focuses his practice on white- collar defense, internal investigations, and appellate work. For the last 18 years he has worked with judiciaries from around the world on furthering rule of law principles, adversarial justice and judicial independence.
    [Show full text]
  • Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021
    Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021 April 5, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46747 SUMMARY R46747 Judiciary Appropriations, FY2021 April 5, 2021 Funds for the judicial branch are included annually in the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill. The bill provides funding for the U.S. Supreme Court; Barry J. McMillion the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; the U.S. Court of International Trade; U.S. Analyst in American courts of appeals and district courts; the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; the Federal National Government Judicial Center; the U.S. Sentencing Commission; federal defender organizations that provide legal representation to defendants financially unable to retain counsel in federal criminal proceedings; security and protective services for courthouses, judicial officers, and judicial employees; and fees and allowances paid to jurors. The judiciary’s FY2021 budget request was submitted to Congress on February 10, 2020. By law, the President includes, without change, the appropriations request submitted by the judiciary in the annual budget submission to Congress. The FY2021 budget request included $7.82 billion in discretionary funds, representing a 4.4% increase over the FY2020 enacted level of $7.49 billion in discretionary funds provided in the FY2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-93). The FY2021 budget request also included $739.7 million in mandatory funds to pay the salaries and benefits of certain types of federal judges and to also provide for judicial retirement accounts. The House Appropriations Committee held a markup (H.R. 7668) on July 15, 2020, and recommended the judiciary receive a total of $7.77 billion in discretionary funds.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Judiciary Policy
    Guide to Judiciary Policy Vol 2: Ethics and Judicial Conduct Pt A: Codes of Conduct Ch 2: Code of Conduct for United States Judges Introduction Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That Are Consistent with the Obligations of Judicial Office Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity Compliance with the Code of Conduct Applicable Date of Compliance Introduction The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was initially adopted by the Judicial Conference on April 5, 1973, and was known as the "Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges." See: JCUS-APR 73, pp. 9-11. Since then, the Judicial Conference has made the following changes to the Code: • March 1987: deleted the word "Judicial" from the name of the Code; • September 1992: adopted substantial revisions to the Code; • March 1996: revised part C of the Compliance section, immediately following the Code; • September 1996: revised Canons 3C(3)(a) and 5C(4); • September 1999: revised Canon 3C(1)(c); • September 2000: clarified the Compliance section; • March 2009: adopted substantial revisions to the Code; Last revised (Transmittal 02-016) March 20, 2014 Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 2 • March 2014: revised part C of the Compliance section, which appears below, immediately following the Code. This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges.
    [Show full text]